My brother's cancer treatment included Yervoy, which is extremely expensive -- $35K *per shot* and he had four of them and the Insurance Company paid without comment. My sister says that in the country she lives in, 10 people *per year* are allocated Yervoy shots. I doubt brother would have made the cut (and it turned out not to help him anyway).

Cancer is relentless and merciless. Diverting your energy into finding insurance sounds like a full-time job, on top of the already full-time job of fighting cancer, on top of (likely) her actual wage-paying full-time job. How'd she have time to write a column!

"But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market." There is no indication that United Healthcare's decision (pulling out of the individual market in CA) had anything to do with the ACA.

The major difference between the two situations is that Romney was considering business issues with health insurance loss an indirect consequence whereas Obama was working on health insurance reform and the health insurance coverage loss was directly intended in order to reform private insurance. The consequence of loss of a particular coverage the reformers didn't like is that a person might not be able to afford the new plan or that a person's doctor or hospital might not be in the new plan they did like. The reformers have made it plain that they don't care about this consequence - the loss of a given doctor, plan, or hospital. They intended it and they simply don't care if it is disastrous for someone or for many.

They are like Stalin starving the kulaks to feed the city workers. He intended to stay in power which required feeding the cities and the kulaks just got in the way. Too bad for them. Fifteen million Americans are being messed with by these American stalinists and all these guys can say is - well it's only the 5%.

"But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market." There is no indication that United Healthcare's decision (pulling out of the individual market in CA) had anything to do with the ACA."

So, the Koolaid tasted good. "No indication" means you don't believe it. The fact that Obamacare was designed to kill private market health insurance is not "an indication" to you.

I read elsewhere that the Obama administration, in the person of Dan Pfeiffer, has wasted little time dumping all over Edie Sundby. I see here that Freder has joined in the chorus, repeating Pfeiffer's talking points.

As someone else wrote, just when you think lefties couldn't get any lower, they break out the shovels.

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

In the president's mind there is an equivalency between cancer, or any other terminal illness, and old age. It's perfectly fine for health insurance to provide pain pills, but not 35K cancer shots.

The fact that Obamacare was designed to kill private market health insurance is not "an indication" to you.

The fact is that Obamacare is not designed to kill private market health insurance. It is so complicated exactly because it leaves private market health insurance, regulated by individual states not the Feds, intact.

And unlike the stories where people are being told that there insurance is being cancelled because of the ACA, the author was notified in January, not September or October, that her company was leaving the individual market in California.

I read elsewhere that the Obama administration, in the person of Dan Pfeiffer, has wasted little time dumping all over Edie Sundby. I see here that Freder has joined in the chorus, repeating Pfeiffer's talking points.

How is pointing out that United Healthcare's decision to pull out of the California market may not have had anything to do with the ACA "dumping" on anyone?

Heh, heh, Barry's death panels are apparently much more insidious than first imagined.Tomorrow is election day, be sure to let every democrat know just what you think of their party, their president, and their bullshit obamacare, preferably with extreme prejudice. They've earned it, every spittle flecked invective.

There's already an insurance company using Obamacare difficulties to market its own plans for those not covered. It sells short term medical insurance which is cheaper; it covers stuff but only for one year. The company has a pitch now that you should buy their insurance for 2013 ("our operators are standing by") and then sign up for Obamacare in 2014. Showing what "agile" really means.

Here's another way to compare - is Scott Walker to blame for any cancer deaths resulting from the way health insurance is handled in Wisconsin? I read a story about WI health care in Shephard Express. They had two interesting facts. 1. 92,000 people were put off BadgerCare onto the exchanges and then 80,000 other people were added to BadgerCare. So if someone had a cancer problem get worse because they couldn't get on the exchanges or couldn't get equivalent treatment to BadgerCare under the exchanges would that be Obama's fault for the way the exchanges work or Scott Walker's fault for not realizing how incompetent Obama is?

2nd interesting fact. Not one person has signed up on the exchanges from the City of Milwaukee. Not one.

"There is no indication that United Healthcare's decision (pulling out of the individual market in CA) had anything to do with the ACA."

-- No, that's true. We'd just have to infer based on facts. It might be entirely possible that major changes in their policy did not have to do with the recently passed laws that made it expensive/illegal to continue having their policies. Maybe they just decided they hated people with cancer.

Maybe the coverage was not cut due to the ACA. But, the ACA is clearly Not Helping: "Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed."

Ann Althouse said... I wish commenters would pay more attention to the Romney/Obama comparison.

Obviously, some will die because of the changes. Will it be fair argument to say, as was said about Romney, that Obama is to blame?

It was unfair to blame Romney for that woman's death because he had nothing to do with it. It isn't nearly as unfair to blame Obama for those who'll die as a result of his namesake legislation. However, it's foolish to believe the Press will ever blame Obama for anything.

"Obviously, some will die because of the changes. Will it be fair argument to say, as was said about Romney, that Obama is to blame?"

Obviously? how can passing affordable health care legislation lead to certain death for some?In the USA patients have never been left to certain death--except during Katrina-- and Katrina was a natural disaster.

The fact is that Obamacare is not designed to kill private market health insurance. It is so complicated exactly because it leaves private market health insurance, regulated by individual states not the Feds, intact."

Brilliant Freder. You may just have articulated how a state may yet find another cause to challenge ObamaCare.

Ann there is a difference between losing coverage because the employer providing it went out of business versus insurance carriers dropping policies en mass due to must provide mandates that companies can't hope to recoup their losses.

To answer your main question, Yes, if not for anything else but to highlight the hypocrisy of the Democrats.

The more significant point is that if anybody needed to keep their insurance and their doctor, it was this woman. So even she was not spared from the big lies. And more importantly all her alternative plans are junk.

A is Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's older brother) stating very candidly on national TV that one goal of the ACA is to get rid of individual healthcare coverage because individual healthcare coverage is a bad thing, or something.

B is United Healthcare informing Edie Sundby that they were pulling out of the California market due to the ACA.

So if (C), Edie dies of cancer, then I'd say that there is a straight line from Barack Obama's ACA to her death. Wouldn't you?

I read elsewhere that the Obama administration, in the person of Dan Pfeiffer, has wasted little time dumping all over Edie Sundby. I see here that Freder has joined in the chorus, repeating Pfeiffer's talking points.

How is pointing out that United Healthcare's decision to pull out of the California market may not have had anything to do with the ACA "dumping" on anyone?

Because only an imbecile, and idiot, or a liar would say that.

UHA looked at what ObamaCare was doing to the individual health insurance market in CA, and decided they didn't want to be part of that. Which makes the decision ENTIRELY the fault of ObamaCare.

So, telling her she's an idiot, and doesn't understand the situation, when in fact she completely and correctly understands the situation, is an attack on her.

Ann Althouse said:So if this lady lost her insurance for some reason other than the ACA, then the 2 cases are even more alike.

Nope, she lost it entirely because of the ACA / ObamaCare. The ObamaCare rules are changing the individual health insurance market in 2014. UHC didn't want to deal with the new rules, so got out of the market.

No new rules? No exit. So the new rules, i.e. ObamaCare, is responsible for the exit.